Bible Handbook

Rating:
Summary: Good Reference for Debaters on Both Sides of the Issue
Review: It's nice to see all the supposed errors of the King James Version laid out in one volume. Of course, pointing out mistakes in the KJV only shows that its translators made errors. Many of these errors are pretty trivial and many others turn out to be more symptomatic of the impoverished imaginations of those who dwell on such trivialities. Even if this book did refute the KJV, it wouldn't refute any other translation, nor would it make a dent in the ancient texts.

Still, this book is useful, not only for those looking to poke holes in what is one of the literary masterpieces of the English language, but for Christian apologists who try to explain such problems to unbelievers as why God's decision to drown the whole world was morally justified, while some man who wishes to imitate God by drowning a few of his morally depraved neighbors would not be morally justified in doing so.

The persistent ridiculing tone of the authors is distracting, but this book is a useful reference.

Rating:
Summary: The Bible Refutes Itself
Review: This book contains all the contradictions, absurdities and atrocities in the Christian Bible. The introduction is a lame piece of writing, and the book contains a lot of repetition, but there's no better way to prepare for a debate with a Christian. This book is a one-stop Bible buster.

Rating:
Summary: Standard biblical errancy reference
Review: This book raises most of the right issues about the reliability of the Bible, especially regarding the problems surrounding the teaching and character of Jesus. Their comments on the fig tree story in Mark 11 are especially incisive. (I would add that Jesus could have miraculously made the fig tree produce fruit out of season, if he wanted figs that badly. And if the tree was someone's property, he committed an act of vandalism by killing it!)

The chapter that hasn't worn well, however, is the one where Foote and Ball describe all of what they considered "obscenities" in the Bible. Perhaps to their Victorian sensibilities (the book was originally published circa 1900 CE), descriptions of circumcisions, menstruation taboos, "goings in unto the harlot," and so forth were unseemly, but as a 21st Century CE Materialist I don't find them particularly offensive. The Old Testament writers are generally quite frank about the animal substrate in human nature, which New Testament writers try to ignore or "spiritualize" away as they were under the influence of Greek philosophical dualism. Not all Greek-inspired writers were that reticent to acknowledge the biological facts of human existence, however: The Roman Epicurean, Lucretius, is quite as open about bodily functions in his poem _De Rerum Natura_ as many of the Old Testament writers are.

No, I'm not offended by the Bible's acknowledgement of our animality. It just supports the Materialist position that we are products of this world, and not visitors from some "higher plane." The passages which offended Foote and Ball may be in bad taste, or present examples of conduct which wouldn't be wise to emulate, but I don't consider them specimens of biblical errancy per se.

Still, this book is a worthwhile addition to the skeptic's library, despited the compilers' outdated attitudes.